A mandatory document-upload deadline bars subsequent proof of eligibility when the notice prescribes that consequence.

The appellant applied for the post of Instructor in Cosmetology pursuant to Advertisement No. 2-Examination/2022 dated 6 January 2022 issued by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission (“Commission”).

The post required three years’ relevant experience in Basic Cosmetology, to be acquired after completion of the requisite course.

Although the appellant completed her educational qualification on 8 January 2015, she uploaded only an experience certificate dated 19 September 2017, showing experience from 1 September 2014 to 31 August 2017; consequently, only two years and seven months of qualifying experience was established.

By a subsequent notice dated 3 February 2023, candidates were required to upload all relevant documents, including merged experience certificates, by midnight on 28 February 2023.

The notice stipulated that candidates failing to upload the required documents within time would not be shortlisted and would receive no further opportunity.

The appellant uploaded the earlier certificate but not a second experience certificate dated 10 January 2022, which certified experience from 1 March 2019 to 5 January 2022.

The appellant nevertheless appeared in the written examination and was provisionally selected.

During subsequent scrutiny, the deficiency was noticed, and she produced the second certificate.

The Commission declined to accept it because it had not been uploaded by the prescribed deadline.

The learned Single Judge dismissed her writ petition seeking appointment and acceptance of the second certificate.

The intra-court appeal challenged that decision.

Whether the appellant could rely on the second experience certificate dated 10 January 2022 when it was not uploaded by the stipulated deadline of 28 February 2023, despite establishing that she possessed the requisite experience before the relevant cut-off date?

Whether the principles permitting subsequent proof of pre-existing eligibility applied notwithstanding the express negative covenant that no further opportunity would be granted for uploading documents?

Whether the appellant’s provisional selection and the Commission’s delayed discovery of the deficiency justified equitable or discretionary relief in writ jurisdiction?

The Court applied the eligibility requirements under the Advertisement dated 6 January 2022 and the Uttar Pradesh Rajकीय औद्योगिक प्रशिक्षण संस्थान (अनुदेशक और फोरमैन अनुदेशक) सेवा नियमावली, 2021, under which three years’ relevant experience after completion of the requisite qualification was mandatory.

It distinguished between the existence of eligibility and the proof of eligibility, relying on Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew, (1980) 2 SCC 752; Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE, (2005) 9 SCC 779; and FCI v. Rimjhim, (2019) 5 SCC 793, which permit later production of proof where eligibility existed within time and no contrary condition applied.

However, relying particularly on Divya v. Union of India, (2024) 1 SCC 448, the Court held that an express negative covenant prescribing a cut-off date, consequences for non-compliance, and denial of any further opportunity makes the document-submission requirement mandatory and prevents subsequent curing of the defect.

The Court also recognized that equitable relief may exceptionally be available where the deficiency in a certificate resulted from an error by the issuing authority, as discussed in Dolly Chhanda and U.P. Public Service Commission v. Renu, 2024 (1) HCC (All) 460; however, that exception did not apply where the candidate herself failed to upload an otherwise valid certificate.

The appellant’s second certificate may have demonstrated that she possessed the requisite experience before the relevant stage of selection, but the governing notice required all relevant documents to be uploaded by 28 February 2023 and specifically required multiple experience certificates to be merged and uploaded together.

Unlike the cases where later proof was accepted because no prohibition existed, the present notice contained an express negative covenant declaring that failure to upload the required documents would disentitle a candidate from shortlisting and that no further opportunity would be provided.

The appellant admittedly failed to upload the second certificate within time, and the omission was attributable to her own inadvertence rather than any error or delay by the issuing institution.

Her provisional selection did not create a vested right because eligibility remained subject to verification, and the belated discovery of the deficiency could not justify overriding a mandatory eligibility condition or granting equitable relief.

The principles permitting subsequent proof of pre-existing eligibility were inapplicable because of the valid and unchallenged negative covenant barring any further opportunity for document submission.

The appellant’s provisional selection and the delayed detection of the deficiency did not warrant interference under Article 226 jurisdiction.

The intra-court appeal was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.